Posted on 02/03/2019 7:09:40 PM PST by Theoria
After years of Republican-led debate over how to pare back Social Security’s rising costs, Democrats are flipping the script with an ambitious plan to expand the New Deal-era social insurance program while making gradual changes to keep it solvent for the rest of the century.
The Social Security 2100 Act, which was introduced this past week in the House and the Senate, represents a sea change after decades dominated by concern that aging baby boomers would bankrupt the government as they begin drawing benefits from Social Security and other entitlement programs. It would be the first major expansion of Social Security since 1972 and the most significant change in the program since 1983, when Congress stepped in to avert a financial crisis by raising taxes and the eligibility age for Social Security.
The bill would provide an across-the-board benefit increase equivalent to about 2 percent of the average Social Security benefit. It would raise the annual cost-of-living adjustment to reflect the fact that older Americans tend to use more of some services like health care. And it would increase the minimum benefit to ensure that workers with many years of low earnings do not retire into poverty.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I plan to start drawing SS in two years.... I’m all for it.
Screw all them young lib’ruls .
” lifelong parasites.”
Since Social Security is only paid to people who earned wages (and had taxes withheld) for a prescribed number of years, it’s hard to see them as parasites.
Exactly......
Even better would be an end to progressive taxation. At the soundbite level, we can defend proportional taxation. Let everyone pay the same rate. If the dems want 90 percent tax rates, they have to hit everyone.
It doesn’t matter how they used the money...It was OUR money they took and it’s OUR money we are getting back...I don’t care if the serial numbers are different...
From watching Judge Judy, I get the impression half the country is on SSI, too disabled to hold down a job but captain of the bowling team.
The amount of SS you get is based on your last 10 years income, not welfare...
An insurance program that forcibly takes your money and gives it to others is not insurance by any definition. Money taken from one person and given to another is called welfare.
You can pretend it is something else if it makes you feel better about taking it from a working person.
Go back to the original way of funding the Federal Government. Each state is apportioned a percentage of the federal budget cost and is responsible for that amount. If they don’t pay then their representatives lose their votes. So California, with 12% of the population would be responsible for 12% of the federal budget.
An insurance program that forcibly takes your money and gives it to others is not insurance by any definition.
I left out the word, “compulsory.” It’s a compulsory insurance program. And all insurance programs transfer money from some premium payers to other premium payers, depending on who is receiving benefits at any point in time.
Donald Trump at 2013 CPAC conference: “As Republicans, if you think you are going to change very substantially for the worse Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in any substantial way, and at the same time you think you are going to win elections, it just really is not going to happen,” Mr. Trump said, adding that polls show that tea partyers are among those who don’t want their entitlements changed. “What we have to do and the way we solve our problems it to build a great economy.”
They didn’t say which century it would be solvent. I think they mean last century.
Even better would be an end to progressive taxation.
I used to agree with you. But I now see the billionaire class as out to get people like me, average middle class Americans. they seek to flood the country with Third World low-wage workers, and off shore the rest of our industry to China and India. These selfish billionaires can and should be taxed heavily, in my opinion.
Too many people still do not understand this. They still think the benefits they will receive are the taxes they and their employers paid into the system. Not true and it hasn’t been true for a long time. The system never factored in increases in life expectancy, the uneven population growth over time, not to mention the expansion of benefits with SSDI. Even if the government never borrowed a dime from Social Security, the Ponzi-like structure of the system would eventually cause it to go broke.
Life Expectancy has increased by 20% since SS began.
Even when Reagan made changes to the Program, they increased the so called Full Benefit Age from 65 to 67 but the “Early” Benefit age remained the same at 62. I guess they didn’t want to rock the Boat too much back then.
Want to keep SS solvent (yeah, I know), start increasing the Eligibility Age by one Month a Year for the next 36 Years. That would put the “early” Benefit age at 65 and the Full Benefit Age at 70.
All those younger People complaining that will never see a dime might actually receive a dime.
Want to save more Money, get a handle of Social Security Disability Fraud and adjust the Medicare Eligibility Age for Medicare to at least 68. 65 is the new 55 nowadays.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.